# Goller v. White

> Wisconsin Supreme Court · June 28, 1963 · 20 Wis. 2d 402

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725307

## Case

- **Full name:** Goller, by Guardian Ad Litem, Appellant, v. White and Another, Respondents
- **Court:** Wisconsin Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 28, 1963
- **Citations:** 20 Wis. 2d 402; 122 N.W.2d 193
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Currie
- **Cited by:** 186 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Criticized by Broadbent v. Broadbent, 184 Ariz. 74 (1995).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725307

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the court retains power to change a court-made rule even though the legislature refused to make the change

## Opinion text

Brown, C. J.
(concurring). I concur in the decision that the insurance policy does not give coverage to White in this accident.
I concur in the result that White is not immune from liability to the infant Goller for the results of White’s negligence but that is because I do not believe that the circumstances of Goller’s residence in White’s household have created parental relationship. I would not extend to White the immunities possessed by a true parent.
I disagree with the decision of the majority that even a parent shall no longer have the immunity recognized by law for many years. This change, resting upon the court’s conception of desirable public policy is subject to very *414 strong arguments for not changing the retention of the time-honored parental immunity.
The majority of the court say that there is no difference in principle between the right of action by a wife against her husband, a right presently recognized, and a similar right of action by a child against its parent, a right which the court now says ought to be and now will be recognized. When the legislature considered that public policy made advisable rights of action by wives against their husbands the legislature stated that right by statute. Till then this court refrained from announcing a public policy in this field primarily coming within the legislative function. See Wait v. Pierce (1926), 191 Wis. 202, 209 , 209 N. W. 475 , 210 N. W. 822 , cited by the majority. I think the court should do now as our predecessors did and leave the business of the legislature to that august body.
Therefore, while affirming the result reached by the majority in this case, I believe the authority of Wick v. Wick (1927), 192 Wis. 260 , 212 N. W. 787 , should be retained until the legislature has spoken.
The following was filed July 9, 1963 :
Supplemental Opinion.
Currie, J.
Our original opinion abolished the rule of parental immunity in negligence actions subject to the exceptions noted. The effect of this change of rule was not limited to cases arising in the future. Since the filing of that opinion, the court has given further consideration to whether such abolishing of the rule should be made prospective as was done in Widell v. Holy Trinity Catholic Church (1963), 19 Wis. (2d) 648, 121 N. W. (2d) 249 ; Holytz v. Milwaukee (1962), 17 Wis. (2d) 26, 115 N. W. (2d) 618 ; and Kojis v. Doctors Hospital (1961), 12 Wis. (2d) 367, 107 N. W. (2d) 131 , 107 N. W. (2d) 292 . *415 We have concluded that there are compelling reasons for making this change in existing law prospective only. Therefore, the change in the rule of parental immunity announced in our original opinion is to be limited to causes of action arising on or after June 28, 1963, the date of the filing of such original opinion, except that it is to be applicable to the instant case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9725307. Public record. Not legal advice.